http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36044
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #36 from oleg at smolsky dot net 2012-03-03 02:59:11 UTC ---
Here is the code emitted by g++ 4.6.3 for smaller_test.cpp (attached to
the bug)
unsigned int test_constant<> proc near
mov r9d, cs:iterations
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #35 from oleg at smolsky dot net 2012-03-03 02:45:15 UTC ---
Here is a smaller version. BTW, I've noticed another regression in
optimization in v4.1 when using a const global...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #34 from oleg at smolsky dot net 2012-03-03 02:19:21 UTC ---
OK, here are some benchmark numbers for the test compiled verbatim with
g++41/g++463 -O2:
$ time ./test41
rv=4243767296
real0m6.063s
user0m6.058s
sys 0m0.001s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52464
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52464
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52456
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-03-03 00:05:34 UTC ---
On 2-Mar-12, at 11:47 AM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> And the undesignated symbols are...? Is the issue recent?
Attached is the symbol diff. The undesignat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48806
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-03-02
23:59:17 UTC ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Fri Mar 2 23:59:08 2012
New Revision: 184844
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184844
Log:
PR target/48596
PR target/48806
* c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48596
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-03-02
23:59:16 UTC ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Fri Mar 2 23:59:08 2012
New Revision: 184844
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184844
Log:
PR target/48596
PR target/48806
* c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52457
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47030
Erik Toussaint changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eh.toussaint at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26191|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49486
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2012-03-02 21:21:17
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Fri Mar 2 21:21:13 2012
New Revision: 184829
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184829
Log:
PR target/49486
* config/sh/sh.md (negdi2):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31640
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2012-03-02 20:56:50
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Fri Mar 2 20:56:46 2012
New Revision: 184825
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184825
Log:
PR target/31640
* config/sh/sh.h (LOOP_ALIGN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50335
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27321
Bernhard Kaindl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernhard.kaindl at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29589
Bernhard Kaindl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernhard.kaindl at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52464
--- Comment #1 from bli at cs dot wisc.edu 2012-03-02 19:01:32 UTC ---
Please find the source code from the URL listed, or :
http://deweylab.biostat.wisc.edu/rsem/rsem-1.1.17.bug.tar.gz
Do the following to trigger the bug:
tar -xzf rsem-1.1.17.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52464
Bug #: 52464
Summary: When I compile my source codes with -O3 option, the
compiler fails. This does not occur if I use -O2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52179
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
--- Comment #15 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-02
18:30:44 UTC ---
libjava is back to being pie in 4.6.4 and 4.7.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52179
--- Comment #29 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-02
18:21:46 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Fri Mar 2 18:21:41 2012
New Revision: 184809
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184809
Log:
2012-03-02 Jack Howarth
Backport fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
--- Comment #14 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-02
18:21:47 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Fri Mar 2 18:21:41 2012
New Revision: 184809
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184809
Log:
2012-03-02 Jack Howarth
Backport fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52383
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52463
Bug #: 52463
Summary: libitm.c/memcpy-1.c FAILs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52458
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-02
17:06:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> but this was a bug so I post it. It's pity MinGW updated only to 4.6.2.
The newest GCC release, 4.6.3, was only released yesterday!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52456
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-02
17:03:22 UTC ---
(by the way, while we are at it, on x86_64-linux I also currently have 1
, no FAIL, when building --enable-libstdcxx-time=rt, I suppose it's
fine)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46716
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-02 17:03:44 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Mar 2 17:03:36 2012
New Revision: 184802
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184802
Log:
PR target/46716
* config/i386/i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52456
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-02
17:00:17 UTC ---
Indeed (sorry) the "troublesome" (ie, leading to FAIL) symbols seem the
ones, on x86_64-linux too we have two and no FAIL.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52456
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org, ro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52456
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-03-02 16:56:23 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini
> 2012-03-02 16:47:44 UTC ---
> And the undesignated symbols are...? Is the issue recent?
I suppose the symbols are from GLIB
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52456
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at CeBiTec dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45988
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |target
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45988
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth 2012-03-02 16:25:21 UTC
---
Created attachment 26810
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26810
profile on zingana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45988
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth 2012-03-02 16:25:59 UTC
---
Created attachment 26811
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26811
profile on arenal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45988
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52425
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-03-02
16:21:37 UTC ---
Reproduced with a vanilla gcc-4.6-20120224, configured
/tmp/gcc-4.6-20120224/configure --target=sparc64-unknown-linux
--prefix=/home/mikpe/pkgs/linux-x86/cross-sparc64
--with-gmp=/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
--- Comment #11 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-02 16:18:34 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Mar 2 16:18:25 2012
New Revision: 184796
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184796
Log:
/cp
2012-03-02 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52457
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16464
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50031
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52452
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-03-02
15:03:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> New Revision: 184778
> Modified:
> trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c
As it is far from being obvious what "trunk" means: At that point "trunk" was
already GC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52325
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-03-02
14:59:05 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Mar 2 14:58:58 2012
New Revision: 184790
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184790
Log:
2012-03-02 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-02
14:59:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 2 14:58:55 2012
New Revision: 184789
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184789
Log:
2012-03-02 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50969
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2012-03-02
14:52:09 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Mar 2 14:51:58 2012
New Revision: 184787
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184787
Log:
2012-03-02 Bill Schmidt
Ira Rosen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50031
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2012-03-02
14:52:09 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Mar 2 14:51:58 2012
New Revision: 184787
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184787
Log:
2012-03-02 Bill Schmidt
Ira Rosen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52458
--- Comment #5 from Alexey Kulentsov 2012-03-02
14:49:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>It works ok if you do the conversion to the base class explicitly:
Yes, I just make public inheritance so this problem is non-blocking for me,
but this w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46716
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8|[4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7
|Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52425
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-03-02
14:22:54 UTC ---
For some reason I can never reproduce sparc bugs with cross compilers. The
original testcase doesn't fail here; the reduced one fails but with a different
error message, and it fails i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52462
Bug #: 52462
Summary: Several libgo tests FAIL intermittently: ../testdata
races
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52325
--- Comment #7 from Jos de Kloe 2012-03-02 13:50:59
UTC ---
Thanks for your (really) fast response and fix.
I'll keep my eye open for other details that might improve gfortran.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52325
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52270
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52325
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-03-02
13:21:00 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Mar 2 13:20:52 2012
New Revision: 184785
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184785
Log:
2012-03-02 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52270
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-03-02
13:07:55 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Mar 2 13:07:46 2012
New Revision: 184784
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184784
Log:
2012-03-02 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52458
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-02
12:39:03 UTC ---
It works ok if you do the conversion to the base class explicitly:
for (int x: static_cast&>(*this)) { }
I think the range-for code needs to do overload resolution in the cla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52461
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fbi.sr at gmx dot de
Target Mileston
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52461
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52461
Bug #: 52461
Summary: [avr] XMEGA+EBI: RAMPZ clobbered while reading from
flash
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #11 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-03-02 11:13:22 UTC ---
many thanks for help
the asterisk makefile detecting and using incorrect compilation flags
ifeq ($(OSARCH),linux-gnu)
ifeq ($(PROC),x86_64)
# You must have GCC 3.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52452
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-03-02
11:00:17 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Mar 2 11:00:04 2012
New Revision: 184778
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184778
Log:
2012-03-02 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52458
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49069
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52457
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52459
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45397
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-02
09:48:17 UTC ---
Another testcase:
signed char a[1024], b[1024];
void
baz (void)
{
int i, s, t;
for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
{ s = a[i]; t = b[i]; s += t + 0x12345600; a[i] = s; }
}
The addit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45397
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-02
09:39:16 UTC ---
Note that once can't use signed type in the narrowing + of course, it needs to
be unsigned char addition to avoid overflows.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45397
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-02
09:36:52 UTC ---
Another testcase (lightly based on PR50182), -O3 -mavx:
signed char a[1024], b[1024];
void
foo (void)
{
int i, s, t;
for (i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
{ s = a[i]; t = b[i]; s += t;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52458
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52455
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-02
09:33:08 UTC ---
This is a FAQ
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#undefined_reference_to_.60S::a.27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52460
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-02
09:13:52 UTC ---
After Jason's patch (which needs to be kept, it was a wrong-code bugfix), we
get out of the FE the addition in int type, while previously it was in unsigned
char type. I.e.
int D.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52460
Bug #: 52460
Summary: Misleading error message with templated c++ code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-02
08:28:34 UTC ---
For me, 4.1 is equally fast to 4.6 on my CPU and on the reduced testcase I've
attached (not clear if it models what the original benchmark did right or not),
and on the trunk regresse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #31 from oleg at smolsky dot net 2012-03-02 08:21:41 UTC ---
I don't think there is a need to actually check the result in this
benchmarkable fragment, so that will reduce the code a little. The only
thing that I was hitting is about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-02
08:07:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 26809
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26809
pr50182.C
Even the reduced testcase is orders of magnitude longer than what would be
desirable for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29882
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47750
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot
81 matches
Mail list logo
